The meaning of "when the Supreme Court makes a decision contrary to the precedents" under Article 3 subparagraph 2 of the Trial of Small Claims Act.

When a decision contrary to the Supreme Court's precedents under Article 3 (2) 2 of the Trial of Small Claims Act refers to the case where the Supreme Court made an interpretation contrary to the Supreme Court's decisions on the interpretation of statutes applicable to specific cases.

Article 3 subparagraph 2 of the Trial of Small Claims Act

Supreme Court Decision 81Da897 delivered on March 9, 1982, 82Da229 delivered on February 28, 1984

Plaintiff

Defendant

Jeju District Court Decision 84Na17 delivered on August 1, 1984

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

The decision contrary to the Supreme Court's decision under Article 3 subparagraph 2 of the Trial of Small Claims Act refers to the case where a decision contrary to the Supreme Court's decision has been made in conflict with the decision made by the Supreme Court on the interpretation of the law applicable to a specific case (see Supreme Court Decision 81Da897 delivered on March 9, 1982). The decision of the court below is merely an assertion that the decision constitutes a case where a decision contrary to the Supreme Court's decision (see Supreme Court Decision 80Da2520 delivered on December 22, 1981) which declared that it constitutes a violation of the rules of evidence, and it does not constitute a case where the decision of the court below is asserted that there is a ground under Article 3 subparagraph 2 of the Trial of Small Claims Act.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Yoon Il-young (Presiding Justice) Gangwon-young Kim Young-ju